Don't worry, I'm not new. Actually, I didn't "read" the article, I looked at the ratings in the second link and that was it.
I would like see even "rough benches" of each OS, but, alas, all I see are playskool dumbed-down 1,2,3,4,5 ratings. Nothing to indicate actual facts. Who know how they were rating the damn tests. Cookies eaten per operation? Fingers counted? Beatings about the head?
Next up, on the Intel with 4GB they claim that overall XP SP3 was worse than Vista SP1? I call BS. And on the AMD with 1GB it said they were the same? As if (I won't comment on Win7's performance, because I haven't run it yet). XP SP3 rated 4th or 5th in almost everything! On the Intel it rated a 1 for "moving 100mb files", and 5 on the AMD...WTF! This guy has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
By the way, who the hell put the ratings in an image? 100k each, for 1k of data. They don't want people to c/p the results or something? How does anything get done anymore, I want my money back, I'm going home.
...what are you doing on slashdot on Friday at 5:30?
no wait, I'd rather ask why it's only 8 times as fast as cable...which cable? I have a 1gb cable in front of me right now.
Besides that, I predict this isn't going to revolutionize anything. It might work in specialized situations, but it's not going to replace cables in walls. Ever.
I recall watching one or two of the first ST:TNG episodes where Majel wasn't the voice of the computer...it just seemed wrong to me.
I always liked the subtle tongue-in-cheek interaction that Lwoxana and "the computer" would have. If one didn't know that it was her playing both sides, it would seem innocuous. For those of us (most everyone watching Trek I would imagine) that knew, it was a neat little moment.
I think that no one will ever replace her. She executed her role so perfectly, unswayed.
I hope you had a great life, and have an even greater afterlife.
because they are supposed to provide products that act blindly on my network/with my other devices.
Now they have proved they cannot be trusted to do so.
So...do I have to read every line of every changelog to make sure this crap isn't built-in and turned on?
What if they provide no way to disable it?
What if the updated firmware has a necessary fix (like the recent DNS hijacks), and I have to choose between being hijacked by retards on another continent, or retards at the company where I bought the device?
Do I get money for looking at their ads? What happens when it breaks apps? Where do they draw the line? Which other products will be self-infected?
The problem with stuff like this is that it gets ignored by most people that buy these things, so the company can easily say "WELLL! We get less than 1% complaint rate for this service, so it can't be that unwanted". Furthermore, since they don't see a 'real' backlash, they start infecting other stuff.
I would say this is unbelievable, but actually, it's quite believable. I wonder just how much advertising one person can be subjected to on a daily basis?
Mod me down for being a little jaded against ideas like this, but I just had to say something...
Ok, so, it still requires the client to boot some sort of OS stub, right? It still needs a method to connect to the Internet...and it sure isn't going to be BOOTP or PXE. You'll still have to have a local OS, but will apps/games run on it?
How is this going to benefit anyone except the corporate coffers? Of course $mega_corps love this idea! They don't care about your experience, they care about taking your money, and remaining in control.
If cloud computing grabs hold of us, we'll have to pay per month. Even just $20/month over 5 years = $1200...heh, yeah, sounds like a superdeal for everybody! Oh, and of course they will charge more per accessible app...and don't expect to use the same app for years, you'll be pushed forward to new apps without your consent.
Do I stream my data, like movies too? What about bandwidth caps? How about your throttle? What happens when my Internet connection goes down? What happens when THEIR Internet connection goes down? What happens when their SERVER goes down? Subverted? If someone doesn't notice? What happens when I need custom apps installed? What if they aren't "approved"? Who do I call when an app doesn't work/crashes? Will my printers work? How about the rest of my attached devices? Legacy devices? What happens if I want access to my stuff while I'm not near an Internet connection? Who gets to look at my operating log? Are advertisements banned?
Imagine how convoluted the simple task of inserting a scanned image will be.
A modern OS needs to be local, all this will be is just an in-browser-web-app, OR some virtual desktop a la Terminal Services.
Happened to me... Cops took my wallet, cash, and almost got my boots but they were too visible in the property room. Threw me in jail. Next day I had to pay $2000 bail to get out. No charges, no apology. Did get my bail money back and recover my car before they could tow it.
Another time they hauled my motorcycle out of my private parking lot and took it to impound. They claimed they found it in an alley.... I had to pay $400 to get it back.
This was the Denver police and pretty recent, BTW
WTH. How is this even possible? What a perversion of our social and judicial system.
Heh, cool. Do you have anything similar written on any other sites?
I'd share my soap opera of a life with teh tube folk, but I'm afraid that the suicide rate might jump...hmmm...actually, I've always been a fan of Darwin's theory.
You're right, it'll happen. And sooner than you think.
First, I want to say that I've read a few of your journal entries, and I feel your pain. I think we share a slice of the same rain cloud. Anyway, your entries are excellent narratives. Quite entertaining, (ironically speaking of course, I could see the same retarded crap happening to me). Are you a writer or something?
This reminds me of a, perhaps not so famous, quote:
"The police used to watch over the people, now they're watchin' the people...The cop that writes you a parking ticket is the same cop that knocks my breath out."...truer words have not been spoken...that was Charles Manson.
So if researchers can detect these things with apparent reliability in their process, why can't ISPs detect them the same way and cut the bastards off?
If Comcast and ilk such as that were really interested in conserving network bandwidth, they'd be cutting off zombies instead of putting on bandwidth caps.
Well, up in Canada one of the larger ISPs named Rogers will cut the connection if their DNS servers are being pounded. They say it's for "security reasons". Someone I know was cut off, and of course they don't call their customer, the customer has to call in and complain that their net isn't working.
So I clean the machine and call Rogers up...I actually asked them to explain their disconnection for "security reasons". Dude said that they don't want their DNS servers to be hacked. It doesn't make sense to me...so I asked why would they have to close off the pipe because their DNS servers are vulnerable? The guy kept saying the same thing over and over...obviously understanding nothing about the subject he spoke. (DNS servers aren't supposed to be updateable by an untrusted source)
The routine is they turn the net back on, but if you get suspended for "security reasons" shortly thereafter, they cancel the account permanently...how's that for customer care!
Anyway...moral of the story is that ISPs can monitor, but customers get pissy and ask for refunds for days of being cut off, so I surmise most ISPs just ignore that traffic.
The only downside is a possible rainbow effect if the display does not cycle colors quickly enough.
Yeah, I think LCD projectors do this. Wave your hand quickly while watching, and you'll see red, green, and blue...kinda neat, how quickly it cycles and totally fools one's brain/eyes into thinking that one is seeing white, yellow, magenta, cyan etc etc.
I tell ya though, it's hard to watch the screen for extended amounts of time...eye strain is terrible compared to an LCD screen...especially at 90" across.
And to the poster below that says that LCDs aren't cheap...a 22" Samsung wide is $250...how is that not cheap?
I'm not really sure what the allure is...I mean...go to yahoo.com and search for "naked chicks", and click image search...I bet you'll see quite a few.
Could be it's that you think you're not -supposed- to see these pictures...in which case it's all in your mind...convince yourself that you are not supposed to be looking at naked chicks on websites, and you will get the same thrill.
Anyway, you probably aren't going to find any MMS pics indexed beyond what you see...sorry man. If you start guessing 16-byte hexadecimal strings and get a result...feel free to post 'em!;)
The "problem" you are noticing is that most software is not programmed to take advantage of multiple execution cores.
The problem in a nutshell is that writing parallel execution routines in software is not trivial.
What you point out is exactly the problem that many have been "freaking out" about for a while. That multi-core is all fine and dandy for workloads that can leverage parallelism. But for a lot of applications this is very difficult to accomplish.
In the case of this "computer" at this university, it's likely a number crunching "computer" or supercomputer. Very likely to be just a gang of machines networked together to process ridiculously parallel problems.
Not something you'll ever boot Vista on and expect to run Half Life any faster on...
Ah yes...but it still goes to how companies solve problems (overheating CPUs, GHz limitations) with non-solutions (2 cores @ half speed), cramming it down our throats ("surf the net! burn CDs! write your term paper! all at the same time! ! !) as wonderful, and then everyone wants it (try to find a new single-core CPU).
Now my stuff runs slower. Thanks. Intel says they plan to make CPUs with 100s or 1000s of cores...what for?! 2 is plenty...
Another serious question is: "How much power (i.e., electricity) will this system consume for both computational *and* cooling components?" A Power6 gets about 100MFLOPS/Watt (www.green500.org); so assuming a Power7 is 4x more efficient with 2x electricity redundancy, this machine will need 50MW!
Wow...I didn't even think of that. That's insane!
(looks over at BFG's website for a 50MW PSU)
They might have a hard time with that one. Mind you, I find it amazing that we're measuring PSUs in kilowatts now -- thousands of watts! I think my first computer had a 50watt PSU, max.
I 100% agree with you on that one. RISC processors SHOULD have taken off like wildfire. As an example, the low clocked original PlayStation was 33MHz RISC (with what...8MB RAM?), but it out-performed anything around. Imagine a 3GHz RISC on the desktop!
Ha ha! Jokes on us. CISC won.
I wonder if IA64 took off, how we'd be doing...probably not too much better I think. AMD64 has been around for how long, and we're still in 32bit mode! AFAIK, all it would take is a recompile, and any given app would run in 64bit mode natively, right? This is inertia from companies that care not, but for profits.
I think we need to thank all the vendors out there for this one, because it has taken 4 years to get any sort of coherent 64bit driver support. 64bit games -- what a joke! 64bit support is still terrible, as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned.
A few years ago I built a PC for a friend with a 64bit Intel loaded with 64bit WinXP. He formatted and reinstalled 32bit because nothing worked properly. He's still in 32bit mode. Why? I am too! Why?!? I feel like we're just heading into the 90's now.
No, each core is running at 4Ghz. That does not total up to 16 Ghz processing power though, because only multithreaded programs can take advantage of more than one core at once, and they still have to wait if they're sharing data.
Ah! Really...that's good then.
On a side note, I notice that shady computer vendors like adding GHz on multi-core PCs in their marketing. They also claimed their computers had a 1GB drive when those drives weren't even available (probably 2x500GB or 4x250GB refurbs in RAID...). MDG was doing it a while ago.
I think they got sued or something, because they stopped doing that.
The OS runs the process a few milliseconds at a time, then kicks the process of the cpu for another process to run (if there is one, including OS tasks such as I/O routines). When the OS starts up the process again for a few more milliseconds, it may start it up on a different core. That is why both cores will show 50% average utilization.
Now if you set CPU affinity for that process to be on one core, then it will max that core out at 100% and the other core will be idle. This may result in better performance, because you get better cache utilization if the process stays on the same core.
On a related topic, this can also be the case if the app is multithreaded -- sometimes it is more efficient to run multiple threads on the same CPU instead of across CPUs, if each thread is accessing the same region of memory. Otherwise, if the threads are on different CPUs or cores, then the threads are constantly invalidating the cache on the other core, causing more (expensive) reads/writes to main memory.
Quite informative -- thanks for the insight. I thought it was the OS, but didn't know those specifics. I had no idea that maxing out one core would be more efficient though.
Having 300,000 cores wouldn't help if you didn't have enough cores. However, University of Illinois probably won't be using it to run one instance of McAfee and one instance of Word. Chances are, they'll be using it for meteorological simulations.
Sorry, that should read 'Having 300,000 cores wouldn't help if you weren't running enough processes.'
So if this thing is 4GHz, 8 cores would mean 500MHz per? Honestly, it doesn't sound so appealing to me knowing that some apps won't ever use 4GHz. Scaling it up, I hear that Intel plans to have 1000s of cores on a CPU...does this mean ultra slow apps?
My guess is that the Windows scheduler is doing it's job and preventing your processes from eating the CPU.
Have you tried playing with process priorities?
I posted so quickly, I should have written "some processes won't ever..."
Yep, that's the "set affinity" part. And that's what doesn't make sense. If I 'set affinity' to both CPUs on a dual-core system, I say it should max 'em both out...but it never does.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, I'm not new. Actually, I didn't "read" the article, I looked at the ratings in the second link and that was it.
I would like see even "rough benches" of each OS, but, alas, all I see are playskool dumbed-down 1,2,3,4,5 ratings. Nothing to indicate actual facts. Who know how they were rating the damn tests. Cookies eaten per operation? Fingers counted? Beatings about the head?
Next up, on the Intel with 4GB they claim that overall XP SP3 was worse than Vista SP1? I call BS. And on the AMD with 1GB it said they were the same? As if (I won't comment on Win7's performance, because I haven't run it yet). XP SP3 rated 4th or 5th in almost everything! On the Intel it rated a 1 for "moving 100mb files", and 5 on the AMD...WTF! This guy has 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned.
By the way, who the hell put the ratings in an image? 100k each, for 1k of data. They don't want people to c/p the results or something? How does anything get done anymore, I want my money back, I'm going home.
We've gotta wipe the system, man. Give everyone a blank slate!
Actually, that's the first principle of The Shock Doctrine.
Interesting parallel, isn't it?
So if someone say nuked the Fannie Mae servers then millions of people would get free homes?
Do it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Tinfoil glasses :)
I'm already prepared. Remember when Coke (or was it Pepsi) put out those flexible el-cheapo glasses back in the 80's?
I still have mine. A pack-rat's vindication.
...what are you doing on slashdot on Friday at 5:30?
no wait, I'd rather ask why it's only 8 times as fast as cable...which cable? I have a 1gb cable in front of me right now.
Besides that, I predict this isn't going to revolutionize anything. It might work in specialized situations, but it's not going to replace cables in walls. Ever.
It's warp-eleven.
Is that like infinity + one?
that I will truly miss.
I recall watching one or two of the first ST:TNG episodes where Majel wasn't the voice of the computer...it just seemed wrong to me.
I always liked the subtle tongue-in-cheek interaction that Lwoxana and "the computer" would have. If one didn't know that it was her playing both sides, it would seem innocuous. For those of us (most everyone watching Trek I would imagine) that knew, it was a neat little moment.
I think that no one will ever replace her. She executed her role so perfectly, unswayed.
I hope you had a great life, and have an even greater afterlife.
See you on the other side.
because they are supposed to provide products that act blindly on my network/with my other devices.
Now they have proved they cannot be trusted to do so.
So...do I have to read every line of every changelog to make sure this crap isn't built-in and turned on?
What if they provide no way to disable it?
What if the updated firmware has a necessary fix (like the recent DNS hijacks), and I have to choose between being hijacked by retards on another continent, or retards at the company where I bought the device?
Do I get money for looking at their ads? What happens when it breaks apps? Where do they draw the line? Which other products will be self-infected?
The problem with stuff like this is that it gets ignored by most people that buy these things, so the company can easily say "WELLL! We get less than 1% complaint rate for this service, so it can't be that unwanted". Furthermore, since they don't see a 'real' backlash, they start infecting other stuff.
I would say this is unbelievable, but actually, it's quite believable. I wonder just how much advertising one person can be subjected to on a daily basis?
Get off my lawn.
Mod me down for being a little jaded against ideas like this, but I just had to say something...
Ok, so, it still requires the client to boot some sort of OS stub, right? It still needs a method to connect to the Internet...and it sure isn't going to be BOOTP or PXE. You'll still have to have a local OS, but will apps/games run on it?
How is this going to benefit anyone except the corporate coffers? Of course $mega_corps love this idea! They don't care about your experience, they care about taking your money, and remaining in control.
If cloud computing grabs hold of us, we'll have to pay per month. Even just $20/month over 5 years = $1200...heh, yeah, sounds like a superdeal for everybody! Oh, and of course they will charge more per accessible app...and don't expect to use the same app for years, you'll be pushed forward to new apps without your consent.
Do I stream my data, like movies too?
What about bandwidth caps? How about your throttle?
What happens when my Internet connection goes down?
What happens when THEIR Internet connection goes down?
What happens when their SERVER goes down? Subverted? If someone doesn't notice?
What happens when I need custom apps installed? What if they aren't "approved"?
Who do I call when an app doesn't work/crashes?
Will my printers work? How about the rest of my attached devices? Legacy devices?
What happens if I want access to my stuff while I'm not near an Internet connection?
Who gets to look at my operating log?
Are advertisements banned?
Imagine how convoluted the simple task of inserting a scanned image will be.
A modern OS needs to be local, all this will be is just an in-browser-web-app, OR some virtual desktop a la Terminal Services.
It won't happen. /rant
Happened to me... Cops took my wallet, cash, and almost got my boots but they were too visible in the property room. Threw me in jail. Next day I had to pay $2000 bail to get out. No charges, no apology. Did get my bail money back and recover my car before they could tow it.
Another time they hauled my motorcycle out of my private parking lot and took it to impound. They claimed they found it in an alley.... I had to pay $400 to get it back.
This was the Denver police and pretty recent, BTW
WTH. How is this even possible? What a perversion of our social and judicial system.
I want my money back, I'm going home.
Heh, cool. Do you have anything similar written on any other sites?
I'd share my soap opera of a life with teh tube folk, but I'm afraid that the suicide rate might jump...hmmm...actually, I've always been a fan of Darwin's theory.
Unfortunately, that didn't make any sense...
I didn't get arrested or have my shit siezed, but I was searched and detained for parking in front of the wrng house.
You're right, it'll happen. And sooner than you think.
First, I want to say that I've read a few of your journal entries, and I feel your pain. I think we share a slice of the same rain cloud. Anyway, your entries are excellent narratives. Quite entertaining, (ironically speaking of course, I could see the same retarded crap happening to me). Are you a writer or something?
This reminds me of a, perhaps not so famous, quote:
"The police used to watch over the people, now they're watchin' the people...The cop that writes you a parking ticket is the same cop that knocks my breath out." ...truer words have not been spoken...that was Charles Manson.
I can't wait for the day that my shit can be taken and I can be locked up just for walkin down the street.
It'll happen.
No, he'd waggle his arse .
A fanny would be a vagina in Britain.
What makes you think he didn't already know that?
So if researchers can detect these things with apparent reliability in their process, why can't ISPs detect them the same way and cut the bastards off?
If Comcast and ilk such as that were really interested in conserving network bandwidth, they'd be cutting off zombies instead of putting on bandwidth caps.
Well, up in Canada one of the larger ISPs named Rogers will cut the connection if their DNS servers are being pounded. They say it's for "security reasons". Someone I know was cut off, and of course they don't call their customer, the customer has to call in and complain that their net isn't working.
So I clean the machine and call Rogers up...I actually asked them to explain their disconnection for "security reasons". Dude said that they don't want their DNS servers to be hacked. It doesn't make sense to me...so I asked why would they have to close off the pipe because their DNS servers are vulnerable? The guy kept saying the same thing over and over...obviously understanding nothing about the subject he spoke. (DNS servers aren't supposed to be updateable by an untrusted source)
The routine is they turn the net back on, but if you get suspended for "security reasons" shortly thereafter, they cancel the account permanently...how's that for customer care!
Anyway...moral of the story is that ISPs can monitor, but customers get pissy and ask for refunds for days of being cut off, so I surmise most ISPs just ignore that traffic.
The only downside is a possible rainbow effect if the display does not cycle colors quickly enough.
Yeah, I think LCD projectors do this. Wave your hand quickly while watching, and you'll see red, green, and blue...kinda neat, how quickly it cycles and totally fools one's brain/eyes into thinking that one is seeing white, yellow, magenta, cyan etc etc.
I tell ya though, it's hard to watch the screen for extended amounts of time...eye strain is terrible compared to an LCD screen...especially at 90" across.
And to the poster below that says that LCDs aren't cheap...a 22" Samsung wide is $250...how is that not cheap?
Any direct links to naked chicks photos?
I'm not really sure what the allure is...I mean...go to yahoo.com and search for "naked chicks", and click image search...I bet you'll see quite a few.
Could be it's that you think you're not -supposed- to see these pictures...in which case it's all in your mind...convince yourself that you are not supposed to be looking at naked chicks on websites, and you will get the same thrill.
Anyway, you probably aren't going to find any MMS pics indexed beyond what you see...sorry man. If you start guessing 16-byte hexadecimal strings and get a result...feel free to post 'em! ;)
The "problem" you are noticing is that most software is not programmed to take advantage of multiple execution cores.
The problem in a nutshell is that writing parallel execution routines in software is not trivial.
What you point out is exactly the problem that many have been "freaking out" about for a while. That multi-core is all fine and dandy for workloads that can leverage parallelism. But for a lot of applications this is very difficult to accomplish.
In the case of this "computer" at this university, it's likely a number crunching "computer" or supercomputer. Very likely to be just a gang of machines networked together to process ridiculously parallel problems.
Not something you'll ever boot Vista on and expect to run Half Life any faster on...
Ah yes...but it still goes to how companies solve problems (overheating CPUs, GHz limitations) with non-solutions (2 cores @ half speed), cramming it down our throats ("surf the net! burn CDs! write your term paper! all at the same time! ! !) as wonderful, and then everyone wants it (try to find a new single-core CPU).
Now my stuff runs slower. Thanks. Intel says they plan to make CPUs with 100s or 1000s of cores...what for?! 2 is plenty...
Another serious question is: "How much power (i.e., electricity) will this system consume for both computational *and* cooling components?" A Power6 gets about 100MFLOPS/Watt (www.green500.org); so assuming a Power7 is 4x more efficient with 2x electricity redundancy, this machine will need 50MW!
Wow...I didn't even think of that. That's insane!
(looks over at BFG's website for a 50MW PSU)
They might have a hard time with that one. Mind you, I find it amazing that we're measuring PSUs in kilowatts now -- thousands of watts! I think my first computer had a 50watt PSU, max.
Oh man...don't get me started. ;)
I 100% agree with you on that one. RISC processors SHOULD have taken off like wildfire. As an example, the low clocked original PlayStation was 33MHz RISC (with what...8MB RAM?), but it out-performed anything around. Imagine a 3GHz RISC on the desktop!
Ha ha! Jokes on us. CISC won.
I wonder if IA64 took off, how we'd be doing...probably not too much better I think. AMD64 has been around for how long, and we're still in 32bit mode! AFAIK, all it would take is a recompile, and any given app would run in 64bit mode natively, right? This is inertia from companies that care not, but for profits.
I think we need to thank all the vendors out there for this one, because it has taken 4 years to get any sort of coherent 64bit driver support. 64bit games -- what a joke! 64bit support is still terrible, as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned.
A few years ago I built a PC for a friend with a 64bit Intel loaded with 64bit WinXP. He formatted and reinstalled 32bit because nothing worked properly. He's still in 32bit mode. Why? I am too! Why?!? I feel like we're just heading into the 90's now.
No, each core is running at 4Ghz. That does not total up to 16 Ghz processing power though, because only multithreaded programs can take advantage of more than one core at once, and they still have to wait if they're sharing data.
Ah! Really...that's good then.
On a side note, I notice that shady computer vendors like adding GHz on multi-core PCs in their marketing. They also claimed their computers had a 1GB drive when those drives weren't even available (probably 2x500GB or 4x250GB refurbs in RAID...). MDG was doing it a while ago.
I think they got sued or something, because they stopped doing that.
The OS runs the process a few milliseconds at a time, then kicks the process of the cpu for another process to run (if there is one, including OS tasks such as I/O routines). When the OS starts up the process again for a few more milliseconds, it may start it up on a different core. That is why both cores will show 50% average utilization.
Now if you set CPU affinity for that process to be on one core, then it will max that core out at 100% and the other core will be idle. This may result in better performance, because you get better cache utilization if the process stays on the same core.
On a related topic, this can also be the case if the app is multithreaded -- sometimes it is more efficient to run multiple threads on the same CPU instead of across CPUs, if each thread is accessing the same region of memory. Otherwise, if the threads are on different CPUs or cores, then the threads are constantly invalidating the cache on the other core, causing more (expensive) reads/writes to main memory.
Quite informative -- thanks for the insight. I thought it was the OS, but didn't know those specifics. I had no idea that maxing out one core would be more efficient though.
Having 300,000 cores wouldn't help if you didn't have enough cores. However, University of Illinois probably won't be using it to run one instance of McAfee and one instance of Word. Chances are, they'll be using it for meteorological simulations.
Sorry, that should read 'Having 300,000 cores wouldn't help if you weren't running enough processes.'
So if this thing is 4GHz, 8 cores would mean 500MHz per? Honestly, it doesn't sound so appealing to me knowing that some apps won't ever use 4GHz. Scaling it up, I hear that Intel plans to have 1000s of cores on a CPU...does this mean ultra slow apps?
My guess is that the Windows scheduler is doing it's job and preventing your processes from eating the CPU.
Have you tried playing with process priorities?
I posted so quickly, I should have written "some processes won't ever..."
Yep, that's the "set affinity" part. And that's what doesn't make sense. If I 'set affinity' to both CPUs on a dual-core system, I say it should max 'em both out...but it never does.